Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, Sisir Kumar Ratho, A
F. Angeline Jennifer – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. migrant obc candidates cannot claim local reservation. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments supporting local residency for reservation. (Para 3 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 3. court observations on constitutional provisions for reservation. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 26 , 28) |
| 4. finding that migrants do not qualify for obc benefits in puducherry. (Para 27 , 30 , 32) |
| 5. conclusion and directive to grant relief to the applicant. (Para 33 , 34) |
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
The applicant has filed the OA seeking the following relief:
“To direct the UPSC to recommend the applicant as per the Reserve List issued by the 1st respondent for the post of Assistant Professor in French under OBC quota and offer of appointment to be issued to the applicant based on the reserve list under OBC vacancy in the place of Bhawna who has been given offer of appointment under OBC quota. She is a native of New Delhi other than Puducherry. The impugned order by th 1st respondent vide order No.1/235(35)/2015.R.III, dated 29.03.2018 has to be quashed.”
2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:
The applicant belongs to the OBC category and is a native/r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
